Contravention

  • 92

Bourman & Huffam [2019] FamCA 58 (7 February 2019)

Interim orders state the father to have limited supervised visitation at a contact centre for child X who is 5 years old and limited partly unsupervised time with child Y who is three years old, however, child Y ‘piggy backs’ child X’s supervised time and attends the contact centre.

The father has now filed an application for contravention alleging the mother has contravened orders 6 times (that was reduced to 5) for failing to produce child X to the contact centre for visitations. The mother asserts that on one of those occasions the child refused to get out of the car to attend the contact centre, ultimately a child refusal form was completed by the worker, furthermore, the contact centre advised the Mother they were concerned about a risk of harm for child X and transfer of that risk of harm onto Y for unsupervised time, the mother subsequently ceased the visitations at the contact centre.

FACTS SUMMARY:

  • 17 August 2018, Interim orders were made for the father to have limited supervised visitation at a contact centre for child X who is 5 years old and limited partly unsupervised time with child Y who is three years old.
  • Child Y ‘piggy backs’ child X’s supervised time and attends the contact centre.
  • The father has now filed an application for contravention alleging the mother has contravened orders 6 times for failing to produce child X to the contact centre for visitations.
  • 1 September 2018, the mother asserts child X refused to get out of the car to attend the contact centre, ultimately a child refusal form was completed by the worker.
  • 16 November, the contact centre advised the Mother they were concerned about a risk of harm for child X and transfer of that risk of harm onto Y for unsupervised time.
  • 22 November, the contact centre advises the father they had cancelled time with child X.
  • 24 November, the mother does not produce child X but delivers child Y to the contact centre.
  • 8 December, the mother fails to produce child X but delivers child Y to the centre.
  • The Mother advised the contact centre that she would not be bringing the children anymore.
  • The mother admits to contravention, but states that she has a reasonable excuse to do so as a consequence of the contact centre advice.
  • The mother has subsequently filed an application to the court for variation of orders.

ISSUE:

Has contravention taken place, and if so, does the mother have a reasonable excuse?

HELD:

The Mother contravened on 2 counts of the orders by failing to provide X and Y for time with the Father, however, she did so with reasonable excuse.

No compensatory time ordered.

Pursuant to s 70NA(4) there can be a reasonable excuse to withhold a child where a party considers that it is necessary to safeguard the health and safety of the child but not for any longer than it is required. The Mother was advised by the contact centre they were concerned about a risk of harm for child X and child Y unsupervised time, this forms a reasonable excuse.

 

  • Like

Nathan & Merrill [2018] FamCA 994 (27 November 2018)

Can you contravene parenting orders by posting information about proceedings, the children, or the other party on social media?

Yes, you can!

The father in this case posted a video, created a Facebook page and posted photographs and commentaries of the children. He gave an interview, which resulted in an article being published on an online newspaper and in the print newspaper and then set up an online petition calling for the mother’s re-trial. Further videos were posted of both children.

There were consent orders in place prohibiting the above actions.

The mother filed for contravention of orders and the father was penalised.

ANYTHING you say or post on social media whether intentional, implied, and mistaken, may be used as evidence in Court.

This is why at FLAST.COM.AU we are managing it quite strictly in terms of member privacy.

FACTS SUMMARY:

  • The Mother and Father have two children, X born 2014 and Y born 2016.
  • 21 February 2018, consent orders were made.
  • The consent orders outlined the prohibition of posting on social media or publishing on a web page anything that references to the proceedings, the children or the other party.
  • The Father posted social media posts and the online news article that clearly identifies by narrative and pictures the parties and the children.
  • 25 June 2018, Mother files for contravention of orders.
  • 5 October 2018, the father filed his own Affidavit conceding that he did not intend to defend or dispute the allegations.
  • 24 October 2018, the father admitted the breaches of the order and conceded that he did so without reasonable excuse.

ISSUE:

What is the appropriate penalty for the father for contravening the orders?  

HELD:

It was held on the balance of punishment and deterrent the father is to enter into a Bond for a period of nine months with a condition that he is of good behaviour.

The Judge took into account the father had a ready submission that he contravened the orders.

In determining the contravention and penalty, the Judge looked to the sections of the Family Law Act 1975(Cth), concerning applications for contravention of orders that are contained in Division 13A of Part VIIof the Act. It was established that the contravention was found to have occurred and without reasonable excuse with the contravention being “more serious” (sub-div F).

Although the father asserts he has removed the content from social media, the concern is the situation may not be resolved, third parties may still be promoting and distributing the story and the children’s identity is now known to the public.

The Judge states the fathers conduct has “showed a serious disregard” of his requirements of the order, and that his behaviour was intentional and appalling.

  • Like

Bradbury & Lander [2019] FamCA 22 ( 24 January 2019)

Can your Facebook posts be used against you as evidence in the Family Court?

YES IT CAN!

The Mother has contravened parenting orders by posting on Facebook domestic violence and narcissist material that were an implied reference about the father. It is important to note the father was not named in these posts.

The mother was required to prove to the court there was reasonable excuse for contravention. The mother was relying on the grounds there was a lack of understanding of her obligation that made her breach the orders.

The mother believes denigrating did not occur because she was speaking the ‘truth’ about the father on social media, although she also concedes that calling the father a “vile human being” could be denigrating. The mother claims she did not identify the father on social media.

The mother is an educated woman, and the court also deems her highly intelligent, moreover, the mother was also contacted by the husband’s lawyer that her conduct (that’s she fully concedes to) is a contravention of the orders and if she continues, it will be taken to court.

The mother was required to answer/prove specifically to the ‘lack of understanding’ this is just one example below were she may have gone awry.

[72] The Mother’s other claims, about the posts relating to domestic violence, or to her experiences in relation to domestic violence, do not explain either how they flow from a misunderstanding of the obligations attaching to the Orders, or how the posts were causally linked to such a misunderstanding.

There was insufficient evidence provided by the mother to the court that demonstrated she did not understand her obligations with social media nor that she didn’t understand the IMPLIED REFERENCE about the father, which is also covered by the prohibition against degeneration inthe orders.

What you can take away from this is ANYTHING you say or post on social media whether intentional, implied, and mistaken, including emails to the OP family can and will be used as evidence in Court.

This is why at FLAST.COM.AU we are managing it quite strictly in terms of member privacy.

As such we ask you to first register on our website FLAST.COM.AU and create an account, and then go one step further and create an anonymous profile.

Using that Anon profile you can post a question in the section of the website AND in the QNA section.

We will then share the Anon Post to FB as well, but your privacy is assured and you can interact with the Anon Profile and no one will know it was you.

With FREE membership you will be notified of case studies and have access to the FLAST network so you have everything to gain and nothing to lose!

For further information click the links below

WARNING: You could face imprisonment or a $2k fine

Snell & Snell and Ors (No. 5 [2015] FamCA 420 (12 May 2015)

[202] In evidence are examples of some of the father’s postings to his Facebook page over the period since the parents’ separation. I accept the mother’s evidence that at least some of those postings are intimidating and threatening in nature. The posting including a person holding a gun is a stark example. I reject the father’s assertions to the effect that this particular posting is some kind of joke. In my judgment the father has used at least some Facebook postings in a deliberate attempt to intimidate the motherI accept the submissions .

[329] I accept the submission on behalf of the ICL that it is in the child’s best interests and in his welfare for there to be an injunction requiring the father to remove the Facebook postings which identify the child or the mother. Both of them are entitled to their privacy and to their reputation, I therefore intend to impose such an injunction as a condition upon the other orders for the father to have time and communication.

The father was ordered:
To remove from Facebook or any online social networking service or any website, all references to any proceedings under this or any other Act that identifies:
    (a) The child;
    (b) The Mother;
    (c) A party to the proceedings;
    (d) Any other person who is related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings or is in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate; or
    (e) Any witness in the proceedings.

(7) The Father be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted, restraining him from publishing or otherwise disseminating to the public or to a section of the public over the Internet or by any other means, any account of any proceedings, or of any part of any proceedings, under this or any other Act that identifies:
    (a) The child;
    (b) The Mother;
    (c) A party to the proceedings;
(d) Any other person who is related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings or is in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate; or

(e) Any witness in the proceedings.
  • Comment
  • Like
  • Sorry the rest of my post (computer crashed the other night before I could finish it).

    Based on Paragraphs 70 & 71 of the judge's other ruling:

    This to me implies that the judge recognises that the mother was correct in saying that what the parents say in private to their support (close family and friends) is actually quite acceptable where there is a non-denigration order in place.  This combined with the judge's mistaken view that the third parties the mother spoke to (two of the four alleged contraventions - the two private conversations that had nothing to do with social media) were the father's "supports" and not the mother's supports.

    I mean, despite his other comments on this specific issue elsewhere in the judgment, based on the judge's interpretation of the orders of what constitutes denigration in the way he claims the mother has contravened the orders, even putting an affidavit into the court saying negative things about the other parent is a contravention of the non-denigration.  The judge's ruling that saying anything negative about the other parent at all, means that making a police report, putting in an affidavit with anything negative about your ex, speaking to a counsellor, a priest, even the family report writer, etc and saying anything that "blackens the other parent's name" would be a contravention.

    Quite clearly, the judge's interpretation is nonsense otherwise the whole legal system falls apart if non-denigration orders means that nothing at all negative about the other parent can be said to anyone at all. 

    On a side note - the controlling father sought an order to stop the mother from speaking to the pastors of her church about the abuse, and speaking to other various professionals.  If that gives you some kind of indication of the background of this case and how controlling and abusive the father is.

    “The mother is an educated woman, and the court also deems her highly intelligent, moreover, the mother was also contacted by the husband’s lawyer that her conduct (that’s she fully concedes to) is a contravention of the orders and if she continues, it will be taken to court.”

    In relation to this, as mentioned above, 14 out of 18 charges put in by the father’s solicitor were either dropped by the father’s barrister or dismissed by the judge.  So clearly, the solicitor was wrong about most of the accusations. 

    It’s also important to mention that the judge should have realised it’s quite common for dodgy lawyers hired by violent men to try to silence battered women and in this case, the solicitor regularly makes claims in correspondence that various things are contraventions or against the family law act etc, and yet eventually the solicitor usually concedes they were “mistaken” or that their claims could not be proven.  Two solicitors on behalf of the mother have written to the father’s solicitor telling them to back off with their false claims to the mother, and the mother since starting to self-represent has multiple times as well.

    “The mother was required to answer/prove specifically to the ‘lack of understanding’ this is just one example below were she may have gone awry.

    [72] The Mother’s other claims, about the posts relating to domestic violence, or to her experiences in relation to domestic violence, do not explain either how they flow from a misunderstanding of the obligations attaching to the Orders, or how the posts were causally linked to such a misunderstanding.

    There was insufficient evidence provided by the mother to the court that demonstrated she did not understand her obligations with social media nor that she didn’t understand the IMPLIED REFERENCE about the father, which is also covered by the prohibition against degeneration in the orders.”

    As mentioned, this was not the mother’s argument.  The mother is aware of the obligations of social media.  What concerns me though is the judge’s belief that the two posts he found the mother contravened the orders in, were an “implied reference” to the father.  The mother provided evidence to the court that the posts were not about the father (the closest to “being about the father” was the mother saying some posts were  “all men suck” posts and which the judge seemed to agree that other “all men suck” posts were not an implied reference to the father and dismissed those), therefore there was no reference to the father (implied or otherwise) to be a contravention in the first place.  The mother stands by her belief that she did not contravene the orders in the first place so there is nothing to “excuse”.

    How can a judge find there is an implied reference to the father in some posts (not otherwise) because the mother said basically "all men suck"?

    0 0 0 0 0 0
    • "The establishment of contravention was done and dusted;at [15] the Mother initially accepted that yes the earlier post was in relation to the Father."
      Only in the context of it could be applied to the father but covered men in general. The fact that it covered the father is well, I don't see as an admission otherwise any woman going through family court who is having a bad day and says "all men suck" (and vice versa for men who say it about women) would be guilty of violating the denigration order.
      "Furthermore, at [65] the OP solicitor also warned her to stop the conduct and she intentionally continued. Moreover, at [55] the Mother then accepted that she did in fact engage in the conduct on each occasion. Intentionally engaging in conduct against current orders = contravention established."
      The father's solicitor has made a lot of untrue claims in correspondence and has been asked to stop doing so. Even the ICL, has been forced multiple times to admit the father's solicitor's claims about other issues are false (and that took a LOT to get the ICL to make those admissions as it meant the ICL was initially wrong too).
      Perhaps the mother, if given a chance to re-argue the case, needs to emphasize more the deceitful nature of the father's solicitor's claims in correspondence (in the other judgement of the case the judge handed down the same day, there is reference to exhibits of an email chain; where the father and his solicitor "accidentally" left off the final email from the ICL admitting the father's solicitor was "mistaken", in regards to the issue in debate that time). The mother was able to provide the last email the father's solicitor "accidentally" left out, showing the father was attempting to mislead the court, and while the judge seems to not have paid much attention to this deceit by the father and his solicitor, the important thing is the judge now knows the father engages in this tactic - unfortunately the contravention was heard a month or so before the interim custody hearing where more of the father's deceit came up.
      "In relation to the mothers rebuttal that she had a reasonable excuse due to a lack of understanding that the conduct was in breach of orders which she raised at [56], the judge remarked at [73]
      ‘Even if I am wrong in relation to the Mother’s lack of understanding of her obligations, the responsibility still rests upon the Mother to satisfy that such ought to result in her being excused for the contraventions’."
      This bit I don't get – in the hearing, I’d say at least an hour was spent debating what the order itself actually meant. With the Judge, the father's barrister (supported by the father's three solicitors) and the mother all involved in this discussion, debating as to what the order actually meant, how can the mother (with no legal background at all) have been expected to know the finer points of the meaning of the order when a learned judge and a learned barrister (and three solicitors) need to take so long debating as to what the order meant.
      "The mother defends the post as not being denigration for she is being truthful. The mother bears the responsibility of proving the truth about her claims; to show there was a casual link of the misunderstanding of her obligations (70) This is where things may of went a little pear shape."
      That's actually not what the mother argued (although the judge clearly thinks she did). Due to the large debate about the definition of "denigration" as applicable to family court orders, the mother suggested that the legal definition of "defamation" might be used. Not that it was her personal belief, but that it was one possible way to solve the Judge's issue of defining "denigration".
      As mentioned, the mother's actual arguments were the facebook posts don't identify the father, and a general "non-denigration" order doesn't apply when speaking privately to one's own supporters (as per the judge's other judgment that day) therefore there was no contravention. The debate is over whether the father is identified or not (which is the grounds for the appeal of the first two contraventions), and which judgement the judge put out that day is correct (and these two judgments I see as completely mutually exclusive and grounds for appealing the second two).

      0 0 0 0 0 0
      • "It doesn’t matter if it’s in a text message or email, FB etc. to one person or to 20 people, whether it’s a friend or family member, there is no such thing as a private conversation, anything you do or say may be used in court."

        That is true.... but as the judge himself said, "(70) While raising matters with third parties may harm the reputation of the parties, restraint also deprives the parties from being able to properly use support from third parties. If they cannot discuss what is going on with third parties it is difficult to envisage how they will obtain support. "

        And this is why the mother is appealing - battered women (and men) need to be able to identify as such to help their healing journey.  It's not about about the perpetrator, it doesn't have to involve identifying the perpetrator, just the freedom to say and identify as having survived domestic violence (which is all the mother sought to do).  And battered women need to be able to reach out in private to family and friends for support, and not have to worry about bitter "frenemies" (people pretending to be friends to spy for their ex) copying and pasting their private conversations, or in the case of the second contravention involving private conversation, third parties getting copies of private emails via deceitful means.

        The mother is appealing because mothers who are victims of DV are often terrorised by their violent exes through family court - because what better way to hurt a loving mother who has escaped the violence, than to take away her children and hurt them instead - your children being beaten and not being able to do anything about it, hurts far more than any beating you receive yourself.  Battered mothers have the human right to identify as DV victims publicly, as long as it doesn't name their abuser, and battered mothers have the human right to turn to their closest family and friends and share with them about the abuse in private for support (something even the judge partially acknowledge via his other judgment) as long as it's not done in front of the children.  Which is why this appeal needs to win.

        Any advice to pass on as to how to do that would be much appreciated.  unfortunately as a self represented person, with no legal background, up against someone who is admittedly an extremely excellent barrister who seems to have a photographic memory for every obscure law and case precedent in Australian law, is not an easy battle.  But it's one the mother wants to fight to protect other battered women's right to speak out publicly about being victimised (in ways that don't name the abuser) and to seek support in private from family and friends.

        0 0 0 0 0 0
        Not logged in users can't 'Comments Post'.

        Seidel & Dixson [2019] FamCA 25 (25 January 2019)

        FACTS:

        • The parents separated in June 2012 after a seven-year relationship.
        • Children X age 12 and Y aged 10.
        • FACS removed Child X from both parents when he was 2 months old following the father holding the baby out the window by his clothes. Child X was placed in the care of the maternal grandparents for 8 months.
        • FACS returned Child X to the mother when the father was in custody.
        • March 2015, the father initiated proceedings in the FCC requesting orders for the children to reside with the mother, and for both parties to have equal share parental responsibility and to also spend alternative weekends, time during school holidays, and on special occasions with the children.
        • The mother sought sole parental responsibility and orders and for the children to spend no time with the father. The mother adjusted her application to include allowing her to change the children’s surnames and to travel internationally without the need for the fathers consent to obtain passports.
        • The father initially had a lawyer, however the lawyer terminated acting for him in June 2015.The father has an extensive criminal history against the Mother (family violence), other intimate partners and the police (resisting arrest, assault). There are various other offences and convictions for contravening AVO’S. He was charged in mid-2006 with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, threatening to destroy or damage another person’s property and two counts of breaching an ADVO and was convicted and sentenced to a sixteen-month term of imprisonment, which was suspended.
        • The father was dealt with in accordance with the Mental Health Act 2007(NSW) and then next through other mental health provisions in relation to these offences.
        • The father is also convicted of having sexual intercourse with 2 minors, they both became pregnant to him- one was 13 years old. The father was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 18 months with a non-parole period of nine months. He was later convicted in 2013 on two occasions for failing to comply with reporting obligations arising from the offences relating to sexual offending against a minor.
        • In January 2015, (subpoenaed police records) state there were apprehensions held by the police and FACS regarding sexual abuse claims by the father’s partner at the time- her daughter has special needs.
        • The father then failed to appear to several of the court events from October 2015 to August 2017.
        • September 2015, the mother, children and father all attended on a family consultant for interviews for the Child Responsive Program.
        • The Family Consultant determined, “The serious level of violence between [the parties] in the past would indicate that a positive co-parenting relationship in the future is unlikely. It could be dangerous for all involved, for there to be contact between [the father] and [the mother].”
        • The father failed to attend the Family report appointment.
        • February 2018, in the Family Report released in, the family consultant recommended the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father.
        • The father did not to appear at the case management hearing on 20 March 2018 and the ICL informed the court that he was in custody, bail having been refused on criminal charges.
        • At the undefended hearing on 21 September 2018, the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) tendered a Joint Minute of Orders.

        ISSUE:

        Whether the children will benefit in having meaningful relationship with their father? Is it in the children’s best interest?

        HELD:

        The court agrees with the family consultants proposal and orders were made for the children to live with the mother, for her to have sole parental responsibility, for the children to have no contact with the father or paternal family, additionally, orders were made restraining the father from contacting or approaching the mother, and the mother is also able to change the children’s surnames and obtain passports to leave the country without the fathers consent.

        In determining the joint proposed minute of order of the mother and the ICL, the court looked to the primary considerations (under s 60CC(2)):

        • The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
        • The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.

        The Judge acknowledges they are required to give greater weight for the need to protect the children from harm, rather than a meaningful relationship between both parents.

        The court established based on evidence provided, the father has committed serious acts of violence against the mother, other intimate partners and police.

        Moreover, the court also notes these final orders are ‘extreme in nature’, however it is deemed the children will not benefit from a meaningful relationship with the father, and that the orders are essential in protecting the children from physical and psychological damage they would experience with their father.

        At [67] the Judge states:

        .... In my view there is an unacceptable risk that the father will continue to behave in a violent manner including perpetrating family violence and sexual abuse to which the children are likely to be exposed if they were to spend time in his care.

        The father failed to continue to engage in proceedings, the court accepted this as the father consenting that he does not wish to continue a relationship with the children in the future.

        • Like

        Breach and Consequences – Be Careful!

        Enforcement of Family Law Orders

        What can you do if the other party ignores court orders or consistently breaches them, whether in the context of property and/or parenting matters? Is it worth filing a contravention application?

        The best answer to this question will depend on the seriousness of the breach and you can only really gauge that by considering the consequences that might flow from the other party’s behaviour; those consequences might be to place the preservation of valuable matrimonial assets at risk or place financial resources in jeopardy; in the case of parenting orders, a consequence of a breach of a court order might place your children at significant risk. Each breach will turn on its own facts, but consequences are an important factor to consider when deciding what step to take next.

        Whatever the circumstances, you do not want to be running off to court on a contravention application for trivial or minor breaches of court orders; any unnecessary contravention application or enforcement proceedings can backfire spectacularly without sound advice and preparation by an experienced Family Lawyer.

        In addition to the consequences that flow from a breach of court orders, you must also consider the expense of such enforcement proceedings. They can be complex applications and there are a number of options available aside from running off to file a contravention application. Sometimes your remedy might simply be achieved by negotiating your position, in the context of the breach, without the drastic step of filing court proceedings. Other times your remedy might be achieved by reaching agreement on a variation to the existing court orders. Whatever the breach alleged, it is vital that you open up a proper dialogue with the other party concerned before running off to court. Trying to resolve matters amicably as a first step is almost always the best thing to do, either by requesting immediate compliance with the orders or, as stated previously, by reaching an alternative agreement.

        There is a path to tread and rules to follow before filing contravention applications.

        The first important question an experienced and sensible Family Lawyer will endeavour to answer before running off to court is……

        “Is there a reasonable excuse for the breach?”

        You won’t be able to answer this question unless you have had a proper dialogue with the other party. If your Family Lawyer doesn’t make every effort to answer this question for you before filing court proceedings alleging contravention, you perhaps need to take a step back and think about whether that particular Family Lawyer is best for you. You need to receive sensible advice. A sensible and experienced Family Lawyer knows just what questions to ask and quite often they can very quickly assess the consequences of the breach and the excuses put forward by the breaching party to give you a fairly good idea whether the court may or may not determine that there is a reasonable excuse for the breach, in the event that you file court proceedings to enforce the orders.

        The other party does not have a reasonable excuse for breach of the court orders!

        Breaches involving Parenting Orders

        In the case of breach of parenting orders and possible consequences of a breach you will find a very helpful overview here on the Family Court of Australia website here.

        If you believe that you may need a recovery order because the other parent has not returned a child/ren please seek legal advice, you can also read what we have to say regarding recovery orders here.

        Breaches in Family Law property proceedings

        Sometimes a party to a Family Law Court Order is just intent on doing as they please no matter what their lawyer or a Court has had to say about it. When there is no reasonable excuse provided, and/or your ex-partner is just refusing to comply, listed below are some of the avenues available in breaches involving recovering money owing or preserving assets.

        Enforcement Warrant – Seizure & Sale of Property – (Drastic but can be very effective)

        An Enforcement Warrant is an order made by the court that property belonging to your former partner is seized and sold by the Bailiff in order to pay back the debt owing to you. In order to obtain an enforcement warrant, you have to file an Enforcement Warrant – Seizure & Sale of Property application, supported by an affidavit that outlines the circumstances surrounding the debt owing to you under the orders, as well as an undertaking from you personally that you agree to meet all of the expenses of the Bailiff.

        You may be directed to attend an Enforcement Hearing prior to the issue of any warrant. You can also claim interest and costs.

        Enforcement Hearing

        Filing an application in a case and accompanying affidavit outlining the circumstances surrounding the debt owing and the breach alleged is an absolute prerequisite to this remedy. A very wide variety of orders can be obtained at an Enforcement Hearing, including, but not limited to, injunctions, stay of orders and instalment payments.

        Contravention Application

        A Contravention Application is totally distinct from the other avenues of enforcement set out above. The remedies set out above seek to redress the consequences of the breach for the person wronged whereas the Contravention Application seeks an order from the court imposing a punishment or consequence on a person who has breached the Court Orders.

        After hearing the application and considering any response, the court may enforce or vary the existing orders, warn the offending party that if they continue to breach orders they will be punished, or simply punish a person by way of fine or even imprisonment (often only as a measure of last resort).

        Third Party Debt Notice

        A Third Party Debt Notice is a document seeking that a third party who owes money to your former partner or holds money on their behalf pay that money to you to satisfy the debt owing to you. A couple of examples might be;

        • an employer who pays your former partner’s salary;
        • a bank who holds money for your former partner on term deposit;
        • an individual who owes your former partner a debt.

        A Third Party Debt Notice is filed in the court, together with an affidavit in support outlining the circumstances surrounding the debt owing. This can be a fairly effective tool in the right circumstances.

        Milburns Law

         

         

        • Like

        Brisbane Airport reopens after 'domestic violence' incident, man faces multiple charges

        CONTRAVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDERS

        1:00PM Sunday 3/2/2019

        A 50-year-old Surfers Paradise man is facing bomb hoax, assault and stalking charges after an alleged domestic violence incident resulted in the emergency evacuation of Brisbane Airport's international terminal last night.

        Key points:

        • A Surfers Paradise man will appear in court on Monday on multiple charges
        • Police alleged the incident was domestic violence and not terrorism-related
        • One witness, who said she saw a man with a knife, said the incident looked like a "family feud"

        Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart said the incident was highly volatile and absolutely life-threatening.

        "First responders, including the Australian Federal Police, security officers at the airport and ultimately Queensland police, were faced with a dynamic and a very real situation that was initially in its perception, absolutely life-threatening," he said.

        Witnesses reported seeing a man with a knife and hearing shots just after 8:30pm but police said there were no reported injuries.

        Police decided to evacuate the airport after finding what they believed was a suspicious device.

        Police Commissioner Stewart said it appeared to be a sophisticated device and "clearly indicates just the extraordinary lengths that a person has gone to to create perception of risk, threat and fear".

        Officers negotiated with the man before firing beanbag rounds to subdue him.

        Superintendent Tony Fleming said the rounds struck the man in the torso.

        "He's been examined by [paramedics], he has no significant injuries," he said.

        The man was taken to the Brisbane watch house, where he was charged this morning with staging a bomb hoax, making a false statement, assault, contravening a domestic violence order, stalking and stealing.

        He is due to appear in the Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow.

        The incident caused major disruption at the airport precinct as it was shut down and trains to the terminal were halted.

        Police said there was no evidence to suggest the incident was terrorism-related.

        "It's my understanding that the man approached a woman, that woman was known to the man," Superintendent Fleming said.

        "There was some communication there and then he spoke with another female and it's at this point that circumstances deteriorated."

        Witness Zoe Bickerstaffe said she saw an older man holding a small knife, and the incident looked like a "family feud".

        "[He] got up and almost started chasing these two younger girls that looked like they were part of his group, he had a knife in his hand and then the girls started screaming, everyone started screaming and they just said 'get out he's got a knife'," she said.

        Traveller Evan Wasuka, who had just arrived from the Solomon Islands, said security was "very firm" in moving people out of the building.

        "All of a sudden, security started [moving] everybody out," he said.

        "They were very rushed, they were very firm in moving people out of the door. There were a lot of them. It all happened pretty fast."

        The terminal has since reopened.

        A spokeswoman for Brisbane Airport said flights were delayed by one to three hours on Saturday night, but that by early Sunday morning no flights were delayed due to the security incident.

        Police also conducted searches on the Gold Coast in relation to the airport incident.

        About 9:00pm, they placed an emergency exclusion zone around a car park in Surfers Paradise, where the bomb squad examined cars and a nearby apartment complex.

        But police declared the area safe and revoked the exclusion zone at 1:40am.

        ABC NEWS

         

        • Like
        ... or jump to: 
        SSL Certificates